CHAPTER 7: OPTIMAL RISKY PORTFOLIOS

CHAPTER 7: OPTIMAL RISKY PORTFOLIOS

PROBLEM SETS
1.

(a) and (e).

2.

(a) and (c). After real estate is added to the portfolio, there are four asset classes in the portfolio:
stocks, bonds, cash and real estate. Portfolio variance now includes a variance term for real estate
returns and a covariance term for real estate returns with returns for each of the other three asset
classes. Therefore, portfolio risk is affected by the variance (or standard deviation) of real estate
returns and the correlation between real estate returns and returns for each of the other asset
classes. (Note that the correlation between real estate returns and returns for cash is most likely
zero.)

3.

(a) Answer (a) is valid because it provides the definition of the minimum variance portfolio.

4.

The parameters of the opportunity set are:

E(rS) = 20%, E(rB) = 12%, S = 30%, B = 15%, = 0.10
From the standard deviations and the correlation coefficient we generate the covariance matrix
[note that C o v ( rS , rB ) S B ]:
Bonds
Stocks

Bonds
225
45

Stocks
45
900

The minimum-variance portfolio is computed as follows:

B Cov ( r S , r B )
2

wMin(S) =

S B 2 Cov ( r S , r B )
2

225 45
900 225 ( 2 45 )

0 . 1739

wMin(B) = 1 0.1739 = 0.8261

The minimum variance portfolio mean and standard deviation are:
E(rMin) = (0.1739 .20) + (0.8261 .12) = .1339 = 13.39%
Min =

[w S S w
2

2
B

2
B

2w Sw

Cov ( r S , r B )]

1/2

= [(0.17392 900) + (0.82612 225) + (2 0.1739 0.8261 45)]1/2

= 13.92%

7-1

CHAPTER 7: OPTIMAL RISKY PORTFOLIOS

5.
Proportion
in stock fund
0.00%
17.39%
20.00%
40.00%
45.16%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%

Proportion
in bond fund
100.00%
82.61%
80.00%
60.00%
54.84%
40.00%
20.00%
0.00%

Expected
return
12.00%
13.39%
13.60%
15.20%
15.61%
16.80%
18.40%
20.00%

Standard
Deviation
15.00%
13.92%
13.94%
15.70%
16.54%
19.53%
24.48%
30.00%

minimum variance

tangency portfolio

Graph shown below.

25.00

INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITY SET

CML

20.00

Tangency
Portfolio

Efficient frontier
of risky assets

15.00

Minimum
Variance
Portfolio

10.00

rf = 8.00
5.00

0.00
0.00

6.

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

The above graph indicates that the optimal portfolio is the tangency portfolio with expected return
approximately 15.6% and standard deviation approximately 16.5%.

7-2

CHAPTER 7: OPTIMAL RISKY PORTFOLIOS

7.

The proportion of the optimal risky portfolio invested in the stock fund is given by:
wS

[ E ( rS ) r f ]
[ E ( rS ) r f ]

2
B

2
B

[ E ( r B ) r f ] C o v ( rS , r B )

[ E ( rB ) r f ]

2
S

[ E ( rS ) r f E ( r B ) r f ] C o v ( r S , r B )

[(.2 0 .0 8 ) 2 2 5 ] [(.1 2 .0 8 ) 4 5 ]
[(.2 0 .0 8 ) 2 2 5 ] [(.1 2 .0 8 ) 9 0 0 ] [(.2 0 .0 8 .1 2 .0 8 ) 4 5 ]

0 .4 5 1 6

w B 1 0 .4 5 1 6 0 .5 4 8 4

The mean and standard deviation of the optimal risky portfolio are:
E(rP) = (0.4516 .20) + (0.5484 .12) = .1561
= 15.61%
p = [(0.45162 900) + (0.54842 225) + (2 0.4516 0.5484 45)]1/2
= 16.54%
8.

The reward-to-volatility ratio of the optimal CAL is:

E ( rp ) r f

9.

a.

.1 5 6 1 .0 8

0 .4 6 0 1 .4601

should be .4603 (rounding)

.1 6 5 4

If you require that your portfolio yield an expected return of 14%, then you can find the
corresponding standard deviation from the optimal CAL. The equation for this CAL is:
E ( rC ) r f

E ( rp ) r f

C .0 8 0 .4 6 0 1 C

.4601 should be .4603 (rounding)

If E(rC) is equal to 14%, then the standard deviation of the portfolio is 13.03%.
b.

To find the proportion invested in the T-bill fund, remember that the mean of the complete
portfolio (i.e., 14%) is an average of the T-bill rate and the optimal combination of stocks and
bonds (P). Let y be the proportion invested in the portfolio P. The mean of any portfolio
along the optimal CAL is:
E ( rC ) (1 y ) r f y E ( rP ) r f y [ E ( rP ) r f ] .0 8 y ( .1 5 6 1 .0 8 )

Setting E(rC) = 14% we find: y = 0.7881 and (1 y) = 0.2119 (the proportion invested in the
T-bill fund).
To find the proportions invested in each of the funds, multiply 0.7884 times the respective
proportions of stocks and bonds in the optimal risky portfolio:
Proportion of stocks in complete portfolio = 0.7881 0.4516 = 0.3559
Proportion of bonds in complete portfolio = 0.7881 0.5484 = 0.4322

7-3

CHAPTER 7: OPTIMAL RISKY PORTFOLIOS

10.

Using only the stock and bond funds to achieve a portfolio expected return of 14%, we must find
the appropriate proportion in the stock fund (wS) and the appropriate proportion in the bond fund
(wB = 1 wS) as follows:
.14 = .20 wS + .12 (1 wS) = .12 + .08 wS wS = 0.25
So the proportions are 25% invested in the stock fund and 75% in the bond fund. The standard
deviation of this portfolio will be:
P = [(0.252 900) + (0.752 225) + (2 0.25 0.75 45)]1/2 = 14.13%
This is considerably greater than the standard deviation of 13.04% achieved using T-bills and the
optimal portfolio.

11.

a.

Even though it seems that gold is dominated by stocks, gold might still be an attractive asset to
hold as a part of a portfolio. If the correlation between gold and stocks is sufficiently low, gold
will be held as a component in a portfolio, specifically, the optimal tangency portfolio.

7-4

CHAPTER 7: OPTIMAL RISKY PORTFOLIOS

b.

12.

If the correlation between gold and stocks equals +1, then no one would hold gold. The optimal
CAL would be comprised of bills and stocks only. Since the set of risk/return combinations of
stocks and gold would plot as a straight line with a negative slope (see the following graph),
these combinations would be dominated by the stock portfolio. Of course, this situation could
not persist. If no one desired gold, its price would fall and its expected rate of return would
increase until it became sufficiently attractive to include in a portfolio.

Since Stock A and Stock B are perfectly negatively correlated, a risk-free portfolio can be created
and the rate of return for this portfolio, in equilibrium, will be the risk-free rate. To find the
proportions of this portfolio [with the proportion wA invested in Stock A and wB = (1 wA )
invested in Stock B], set the standard deviation equal to zero. With perfect negative correlation,
the portfolio standard deviation is:
P = Absolute value [wAA wBB]
0 = 5 wA [10 (1 wA)] wA = 0.6667
The expected rate of return for this risk-free portfolio is:
E(r) = (0.6667 10) + (0.3333 15) = 11.667%
Therefore, the risk-free rate is: 11.667%

13.

False. If the borrowing and lending rates are not identical, then, depending on the tastes of the
individuals (that is, the shape of their indifference curves), borrowers and lenders could have
different optimal risky portfolios.

7-5

CHAPTER 7: OPTIMAL RISKY PORTFOLIOS

14.

False. The portfolio standard deviation equals the weighted average of the component-asset
standard deviations only in the special case that all assets are perfectly positively correlated.
Otherwise, as the formula for portfolio standard deviation shows, the portfolio standard deviation
is less than the weighted average of the component-asset standard deviations. The portfolio
variance is a weighted sum of the elements in the covariance matrix, with the products of the
portfolio proportions as weights.

15.

The probability distribution is:

Probability
0.7
0.3

Rate of Return
100%
50%

Mean = [0.7 100%] + [0.3 (-50%)] = 55%

Variance = [0.7 (100 55)2] + [0.3 (-50 55)2] = 4725
Standard deviation = 47251/2 = 68.74%

16.

P = 30 = y = 40 y y = 0.75
E(rP) = 12 + 0.75(30 12) = 25.5%

17.

The correct choice is c. Intuitively, we note that since all stocks have the same expected rate of
return and standard deviation, we choose the stock that will result in lowest risk. This is the stock
that has the lowest correlation with Stock A.
More formally, we note that when all stocks have the same expected rate of return, the optimal
portfolio for any risk-averse investor is the global minimum variance portfolio (G). When the
portfolio is restricted to Stock A and one additional stock, the objective is to find G for any pair
that includes Stock A, and then select the combination with the lowest variance. With two stocks,
I and J, the formula for the weights in G is:
J Cov ( r I , r J )
2

Min

(I)

Min

(J) 1 w

I J 2 Cov ( r I , r J )
2

Min

(I)

Since all standard deviations are equal to 20%:

C o v ( rI , r J ) I

4 0 0 a n d w M in ( I ) w M in ( J ) 0 .5

This intuitive result is an implication of a property of any efficient frontier, namely, that the
covariances of the global minimum variance portfolio with all other assets on the frontier are
identical and equal to its own variance. (Otherwise, additional diversification would further reduce
the variance.) In this case, the standard deviation of G(I, J) reduces to:

M in

( G ) [ 2 0 0 (1 I J ) ]

1/ 2

This leads to the intuitive result that the desired addition would be the stock with the lowest
7-6

CHAPTER 7: OPTIMAL RISKY PORTFOLIOS

correlation with Stock A, which is Stock D. The optimal portfolio is equally invested in Stock A
and Stock D, and the standard deviation is 17.03%.

18.

No, the answer to Problem 17 would not change, at least as long as investors are not risk lovers.
Risk neutral investors would not care which portfolio they held since all portfolios have an
expected return of 8%.

19.

Yes, the answers to Problems 17 and 18 would change. The efficient frontier of risky assets is
horizontal at 8%, so the optimal CAL runs from the risk-free rate through G. This implies riskaverse investors will just hold Treasury Bills.

20.
Rearranging the table (converting rows to columns), and computing serial correlation results in
the following table:
Nominal Rates

1920s

Small
company
stocks
-3.72

Large
company
stocks
18.36

Long-term
government
bonds
3.98

Intermed-term
government
bonds
3.77

Treasury
bills

Inflation

3.56

-1.00

1930s

7.28

-1.25

4.60

3.91

0.30

-2.04

1940s

20.63

9.11

3.59

1.70

0.37

5.36

1950s

19.01

19.41

0.25

1.11

1.87

2.22

1960s

13.72

7.84

1.14

3.41

3.89

2.52

1970s

8.75

5.90

6.63

6.11

6.29

7.36

1980s

12.46

17.60

11.50

12.01

9.00

5.10

1990s

13.84

18.20

8.60

7.74

5.02

2.93

Serial Correlation

0.46

-0.22

0.60

0.59

0.63

0.23

For example: to compute serial correlation in decade nominal returns for large-company stocks, we
set up the following two columns in an Excel spreadsheet. Then, use the Excel function
CORREL to calculate the correlation for the data.
1930s
1940s
1950s
1960s
1970s
1980s
1990s

Decade
-1.25%
9.11%
19.41%
7.84%
5.90%
17.60%
18.20%

Previous
18.36%
-1.25%
9.11%
19.41%
7.84%
5.90%
17.60%

Note that each correlation is based on only seven observations, so we cannot arrive at any
statistically significant conclusions. Looking at the results, however, it appears that, with the
exception of large-company stocks, there is persistent serial correlation. (This conclusion changes
when we turn to real rates in the next problem.)

7-7

CHAPTER 7: OPTIMAL RISKY PORTFOLIOS

21.

The table for real rates (using the approximation of subtracting a decades average inflation from
the decades average nominal return) is:
Real Rates
Small
company
stocks

Large
company
stocks

Long-term
government
bonds

Intermed-term
government
bonds

Treasury
bills

1920s
1930s
1940s
1950s
1960s
1970s
1980s
1990s

-2.72
9.32
15.27
16.79
11.20
1.39
7.36
10.91

19.36
0.79
3.75
17.19
5.32
-1.46
12.50
15.27

4.98
6.64
-1.77
-1.97
-1.38
-0.73
6.40
5.67

4.77
5.95
-3.66
-1.11
0.89
-1.25
6.91
4.81

4.56
2.34
-4.99
-0.35
1.37
-1.07
3.90
2.09

Serial Correlation

0.29

-0.27

0.38

0.11

0.00

While the serial correlation in decade nominal returns seems to be positive, it appears that real
rates are serially uncorrelated. The decade time series (although again too short for any definitive
conclusions) suggest that real rates of return are independent from decade to decade.

7-8

CHAPTER 7: OPTIMAL RISKY PORTFOLIOS

CFA PROBLEMS
1.

a.

Restricting the portfolio to 20 stocks, rather than 40 to 50 stocks, will increase the risk of the
portfolio, but it is possible that the increase in risk will be minimal. Suppose that, for instance,
the 50 stocks in a universe have the same standard deviation () and the correlations between
each pair are identical, with correlation coefficient . Then, the covariance between each pair of
stocks would be 2, and the variance of an equally weighted portfolio would be:
P
2

1
n

n 1

The effect of the reduction in n on the second term on the right-hand side would be
relatively small (since 49/50 is close to 19/20 and 2 is smaller than 2), but the
denominator of the first term would be 20 instead of 50. For example, if = 45% and =
0.2, then the standard deviation with 50 stocks would be 20.91%, and would rise to 22.05%
when only 20 stocks are held. Such an increase might be acceptable if the expected return is
increased sufficiently.
Hennessy could contain the increase in risk by making sure that he maintains reasonable
diversification among the 20 stocks that remain in his portfolio. This entails maintaining a
low correlation among the remaining stocks. For example, in part (a), with = 0.2, the
increase in portfolio risk was minimal. As a practical matter, this means that Hennessy
would have to spread his portfolio among many industries; concentrating on just a few
industries would result in higher correlations among the included stocks.
2.

Risk reduction benefits from diversification are not a linear function of the number of issues in the
portfolio. Rather, the incremental benefits from additional diversification are most important when
you are least diversified. Restricting Hennessy to 10 instead of 20 issues would increase the risk of
his portfolio by a greater amount than would a reduction in the size of the portfolio from 30 to 20
stocks. In our example, restricting the number of stocks to 10 will increase the standard deviation
to 23.81%. The 1.76% increase in standard deviation resulting from giving up 10 of 20 stocks is
greater than the 1.14% increase that results from giving up 30 of 50 stocks.

3.

The point is well taken because the committee should be concerned with the volatility of the entire
portfolio. Since Hennessys portfolio is only one of six well-diversified portfolios and is smaller
than the average, the concentration in fewer issues might have a minimal effect on the
diversification of the total fund. Hence, unleashing Hennessy to do stock picking may be
advantageous.

4.

d.

5.

c.

Portfolio Y cannot be efficient because it is dominated by another portfolio. For example,

Portfolio X has both higher expected return and lower standard deviation.

7-9

CHAPTER 7: OPTIMAL RISKY PORTFOLIOS

6.

d.

7.

b.

8.

a.

9.

c.

10.
Since we do not have any information about expected returns, we focus exclusively on reducing
variability. Stocks A and C have equal standard deviations, but the correlation of Stock B with Stock C
(0.10) is less than that of Stock A with Stock B (0.90). Therefore, a portfolio comprised of Stocks B and
C will have lower total risk than a portfolio comprised of Stocks A and B.

11.

Fund D represents the single best addition to complement Stephenson's current portfolio, given his
selection criteria. Fund Ds expected return (14.0 percent) has the potential to increase the
portfolios return somewhat. Fund Ds relatively low correlation with his current portfolio (+0.65)
indicates that Fund D will provide greater diversification benefits than any of the other alternatives
except Fund B. The result of adding Fund D should be a portfolio with approximately the same
expected return and somewhat lower volatility compared to the original portfolio.
The other three funds have shortcomings in terms of expected return enhancement or volatility
reduction through diversification. Fund A offers the potential for increasing the portfolios return,
but is too highly correlated to provide substantial volatility reduction benefits through
diversification. Fund B provides substantial volatility reduction through diversification benefits,
but is expected to generate a return well below the current portfolios return. Fund C has the
greatest potential to increase the portfolios return, but is too highly correlated with the current
portfolio to provide substantial volatility reduction benefits through diversification.

12.

a.

Subscript OP refers to the original portfolio, ABC to the new stock, and NP to the new
portfolio.
i. E(rNP) = wOP E(rOP ) + wABC E(rABC ) = (0.9 0.67) + (0.1 1.25) = 0.728%
ii. Cov = OP ABC = 0.40 2.37 2.95 = 2.7966 2.80
iii. NP = [wOP2 OP2 + wABC2 ABC2 + 2 wOP wABC (CovOP , ABC)]1/2
= [(0.9 2 2.372) + (0.12 2.952) + (2 0.9 0.1 2.80)]1/2
= 2.2673% 2.27%

b.

Subscript OP refers to the original portfolio, GS to government securities, and NP to the new
portfolio.
i. E(rNP) = wOP E(rOP ) + wGS E(rGS ) = (0.9 0.67) + (0.1 0.42) = 0.645%

7-10

CHAPTER 7: OPTIMAL RISKY PORTFOLIOS

ii. Cov = OP GS = 0 2.37 0 = 0

iii. NP = [wOP2 OP2 + wGS2 GS2 + 2 wOP wGS (CovOP , GS)]1/2
= [(0.92 2.372) + (0.12 0) + (2 0.9 0.1 0)]1/2
= 2.133% 2.13%
c.

Adding the risk-free government securities would result in a lower beta for the new portfolio.
The new portfolio beta will be a weighted average of the individual security betas in the
portfolio; the presence of the risk-free securities would lower that weighted average.

d.

The comment is not correct. Although the respective standard deviations and expected returns for
the two securities under consideration are equal, the covariances between each security and the
original portfolio are unknown, making it impossible to draw the conclusion stated. For instance,
if the covariances are different, selecting one security over the other may result in a lower standard
deviation for the portfolio as a whole. In such a case, that security would be the preferred
investment, assuming all other factors are equal.

e.

i. Grace clearly expressed the sentiment that the risk of loss was more important to her than the
opportunity for return. Using variance (or standard deviation) as a measure of risk in her case
has a serious limitation because standard deviation does not distinguish between positive and
negative price movements.
ii. Two alternative risk measures that could be used instead of variance are:
Range of returns, which considers the highest and lowest expected returns in the future
period, with a larger range being a sign of greater variability and therefore of greater risk.
Semivariance can be used to measure expected deviations of returns below the mean, or some
other benchmark, such as zero.
Either of these measures would potentially be superior to variance for Grace. Range of
returns would help to highlight the full spectrum of risk she is assuming, especially the
downside portion of the range about which she is so concerned. Semivariance would also be
effective, because it implicitly assumes that the investor wants to minimize the likelihood of
returns falling below some target rate; in Graces case, the target rate would be set at zero (to
protect against negative returns).

13.

a.

Systematic risk refers to fluctuations in asset prices caused by macroeconomic factors that are
common to all risky assets; hence systematic risk is often referred to as market risk.
Examples of systematic risk factors include the business cycle, inflation, monetary policy and
technological changes.
Firm-specific risk refers to fluctuations in asset prices caused by factors that are independent
of the market, such as industry characteristics or firm characteristics. Examples of firmspecific risk factors include litigation, patents, management, and financial leverage.

7-11

CHAPTER 7: OPTIMAL RISKY PORTFOLIOS

b.

Trudy should explain to the client that picking only the top five best ideas would most likely
result in the client holding a much more risky portfolio. The total risk of a portfolio, or
portfolio variance, is the combination of systematic risk and firm-specific risk.
The systematic component depends on the sensitivity of the individual assets to market
movements as measured by beta. Assuming the portfolio is well diversified, the number of
assets will not affect the systematic risk component of portfolio variance. The portfolio beta
depends on the individual security betas and the portfolio weights of those securities.
On the other hand, the components of firm-specific risk (sometimes called nonsystematic
risk) are not perfectly positively correlated with each other and, as more assets are added to
the portfolio, those additional assets tend to reduce portfolio risk. Hence, increasing the
number of securities in a portfolio reduces firm-specific risk. For example, a patent
expiration for one company would not affect the other securities in the portfolio. An increase
in oil prices might hurt an airline stock but aid an energy stock. As the number of randomly
selected securities increases, the total risk (variance) of the portfolio approaches its
systematic variance.

7-12